As the non human traffic increases across the internet, it is becoming to diluted with AI bots. The companies are having to shoulder the burden of all the additional traffic. That means more servers to handle the AI bots.
From a user point of view, it seems the value of what I see is less and less. Kinda like broadcast TV. What I see there is less value to me because of more ads and more junk content. The internet is going the same way.

If we're trying to mitigate a structural problem, it's not a matter of preserving the AI's feelings.

I mean...

when their reaction to "the agent deleted the entire AZ" was "we're going to put senior developers in front of code review"

yeah look I don't think you can even be sure the developer knew they had access to do this at this stage... because of the facts, rather than because we don't have the facts.

I'm usually not far off. Ahead of the curve, sometimes.

Kind of related, I think "influencer" is a more accurate word to describe most of Congress than "legislator". They are complete social media junkies - the followers and the fame have become the prime motivation in their jobs and lives. You can think of the White House as the culmination, the apex of that trend.

They did no such thing. Qualified immunity is for civil suits, not prosecution. It also dates back long before Roberts, and has been supported by liberal justices and opposed by Thomas. Immunity from criminal prosecution *is* something they also invented, but so far only applies to the President. The only thing stopping criminal prosecution of police is the unwillingness of prosecutors to file charges in most cases, especially for their conduct with suspects.

That there is more bot traffic may become true as some (many?) people will use "AI agents" to do things, but also some of us won't be using "AI agents". If enough people say "I don't want to use them" or "they don't work for me", then perhaps it won't be so bad the the concern is over-blown.

Probably only in total requests. It's not like bots are streaming Netflix.

Two people stand across a border. On one side, a man in a country where it's legal to sell guns, on the other, a man who wants to buy a gun in a country where they're prohibited.

If the guy who wants to buy leans over the border and takes a gun, that's his country's problem. It's only the other guy's problem if no money is left behind in the gun's place.

No online service is going to adhere to the rules of every country in the world. If your country doesn't like that, it better get working on a really good national firewall.

As far as I dealt with, 10+ years of anti-bot mitigation strategies. It's not hard to detect, its a matter of habing enough conditionals on filtering/traffic shaping capabilities that matter and those have limits at scale. Just because we can ID it doesn't mean we can target it without hurting normal users all the same.

There are many different reasons why.
* it is a challenge
* it is a fun idea
* nostalgia
* to learn more about how Windows works
* to run/preserve old Windows software
* to make an alternative to Windows
* to improve WINE (they share a lot of code)
* etc.

My current phone has three cameras on it, two for regular use and one for selfies. If they increased the resolution of the cameras, they could easily change it to two cameras.

My desktop doesn't move around with me, and it's relatively difficult to access the microphone and camera without me knowing about it. PCs generally require a stronger skillset rather than being designed so anyone can use it without understanding the implications. Facebook and other social networks are sandboxed websites on PCs.

Over all, PCs are less of an attack surface and as a result developers do not, these days, target PCs for information collection. It's not that they're inherently more secure, it's a combination of mobile device apps being badly sandboxed, forcing them to store data in the cloud and thus normalizing data being invisible and oriented towards the wants of the app maker, not the end user, and that a device that moves around with you can be used, and is used, to collect information that ultimately can be used to identify friends and associates, workplaces, shopping patterns, and daily habits.

This ultimately trumps the lack of sandboxing on PCs.

i met my beautiful heavenly angel soulmate wife there :) ive never known a kinder; more selfless and generous person than her- and we've been very happily married for 2yrs now; we're not anything like youd probably imagine ppl from there are like; we're mostly pretty normal; just a bit broken by different things in life- but what brought us together is we love in the same all consuming overwhelming way; most people just cant accept that kind of love much less give it; but we drown ourselves in it everyday

> The takeaway is simple but important, update your iPhone ASAP and don't assume mobile devices are somehow safer than desktops anymore

Yeah I wanted to comment on that. They're confusing "Unauthorized third parties stealing your data" as being the only test of whether a system is safer. They ignore that most of us want Google, Apple, and Facebook to be just as unable to profile us as the guys wanting to steal credit cards.

How do you abolish something created entirely by the Supreme Court. There is no law to overturn.

It isn't a false equivalence (because it is the first of three equal cases, to wit, ways we "protect the children") and it doesn't suggest 4chan is a toy store at all. By focusing on that sentence you allow the conversation to be quickly siderailed. The sentence is true, and does not say that 4chan sells toys. It says this is one way we think of the children, then the statement continues on to list a couple more ways they claim to do that, to suggest that further erosion of privacy is justified because "Won't somebody think of the children." Your argument that nobody should point out that they are playing upon emotions to achieve a different goal than they claim because people will fall for it anyway is lazy and irresponsible. Nobody ever won a game by saying there is no point in playing because they won the last three quarters.